On World Government: An Orwellian Nightmare?
In the last post I wrote about how world government could improve safety and security, and protect people’s rights. This would not magically solve the problem. Civil war and sectarian strife would still exist, however, I believe a global government will be better equipped to deal with these issues than our current system.
In this post I will try to address some questions brought up in the comments on the previous post. Some of the questions I received regarded the possibility of a world government being used, not to protect and secure freedom, but rather to oppress. It appears that when people talk about world government it conjures images of a massive conspiracy or some dystopian nightmare of totalitarian oppression. (For evidence just google ‘one world government’).
There is no reason why a government at that encompasses the entire world would necessarily be more oppressive than a national government. Any government has the potential to oppress and terrorize as well as to guarantee and protect freedom. The question is not one of geographic scale. It, instead, relates to the scope and power of government.
Instituting a government of any kind involves taking a chance. There is always the risk that it may be subverted or manipulated and used with ill intent. These risks can be mitigated through the use of a written constitution, by placing limitations on governmental power, and by having a written bill of rights. One of the key aspects to limiting power within a global government would be the decentralization of power. Power and authority should be divided between the global federal government and the states (countries). Additionally power should be divided among different branches of government. The usual mechanisms that check and limit power within a nation-state would also serve the same function in a world government.
In reality, there is nothing that could be done that would 100% guarantee the survival of a democratic government or prevent a military coup. I believe that even in the USA, a military take over of the government would be possible. If enough people within the army were somehow persuaded to follow and take orders from a general instead of the president, such a coup could be carried out. Why does this not happen? Why hasn’t it happened? Is it because soldiers who voice their politics too publicly are reprimanded? Is it due to faith in democracy? Ultimately, I don’t know. I do not know how a military coup could be definitively prevented. Maybe education is key: teach kids from a young age to cherish and value democracy and civil society. There are, however, numerous examples of successful democratic societies that have avoided such pitfalls. I believe that a world government could do so too. Although, one key difference, between national democracies and a hypothetical global democracy, is that national states are comparatively homogenous.
The challenge of creating a world government, therefore, would not be avoiding tyranny (which is always a goal of democratic government), instead it would be cohesion. There are numerous free democratic societies that have successfully balanced power and freedom. So, the challenge would be to create a government that takes immense diversity and forges it into a cohesive system.
Most of the criticism that I received indicated that people did not think that a global government was practical/workable. Surprisingly, most people qualified their doubts with a “yet.” The world is not ready “yet.” In my next couple of essays on the topic of global government I will continue to argue why we need it. Then, I will turn to the issue of workability, and I will argue why I think it is workable under our current conditions. And for those who are not persuaded, I will include some ideas about how the world could be made ready.
You say there are numerous free democratic societies that have successfully balanced power and freedom. I am not aware of any. What you can do is a narrow band of government accepted activity. We have the right to protest but only if you get a permit and restrict yourself to a small area. If you step out of line the police are ready to brutalize you. Look at the occupy movement. We have freedom of the press but they can only ask pre-approved questions to Obama. They must also divulge sources of information or be put in jail. We have the right to a jury trial but only if the government allows it. Otherwise, they have the Defense Authorization Bill to imprison you without charges. You have no privacy rights, even to your own person, because you can be stopped and searched at any time. NY police did random searches on thousands of innocent people last year.
It’s true our government allows us more leeway than others, such as China, but having a more benevolent dictator isn’t the same as being free. We do not have absolute rights in the sense the government cannot trample us. The same is true throughout Europe.
A democracy should be able to correct oppression at the voting booth. Do you really think the presidential election this fall will change anything? Will the next man suddenly stop corporate welfare, pointless wars, or put the criminal bankers in jail? Will we regain the freedoms our Constitution guarantees? Not many think so. No matter who you vote for, the outcome will be the same. We see this trend on the State and local level too. Nothing ever changes.
Your government plan appears to hinge on democracy but there are no examples it has ever worked in large countries over time. How will you remedy the inherent failure of the democratic system? Saying it wouldn’t be any worse because of size might not be true if it replaces one that isn’t as oppressive.
If I am correct, the basic question that you are asking is ‘why would a world government be better than the world system that we have now?’ If so I’ll answer this as best as I can near the end of this series.
For now I’ll say that if a world government is no worse on civil liberties, but produces better results on security, or economics, then I would say that would be a reason to support world government. Although, from reading you blog, I know you won’t like my ideas on economics, but we’ll see.
Even though I find myself writing from a distinctly American point of view I understand that some of my ideas will appeal to people in other parts of the world more than in America. I’ll try to include a post that tries to sell the idea specifically to Americans.
I’ll look forward to your future posts.
No government is good government. The problem is not government, but people in government because people have a defect that has yet to be fixed. Greed, lust for power and wealth, and pride. As long as these things exist then people that are placed in power will exploit their powers to benefit themselves and the select few that they select, just like they do now, just like they have for 100′s and 1000′s of years. There is nothing new under the sun. A cycle ends and it begins again. A government ends, then it begins again just like it was before. The only difference is that we have the ability to change things by a force of population here if we wished, but if everything was turned over to world government then changing anything about it would be almost impossible. World government is dangerous. Benjamin Franklin stated: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”